Saturday, March 11, 2006

War Plans, WMD, & Saddam

Interviews, incidents, and documents demonstrating how fearful Saddam Hussein was of any possible upheaval, coup, or revolt from within Iraq that he took positive steps to thwart the work of his own army, according to the New York Times today (adapted from the book "Cobra II: The Inside Story of the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq" to be released by Pantheon Books March 14.) Saddam refused to permit communications between military units, denied requests for troop movements from Western Iraq (fro which Hussein believed the invasion would come) to meet the US Marines invading northward through the Karbala Gap (as his top Generals believed the invasion would come.)

American intelligence analysts, disguised as military historians, interviewed over 110 Iraqi officials and military officers to prepare a secret report detailing how Saddam Hussein prepared for and fought the war. Some officials were treated to lavish dinners while others were questioned at the Baghdad airport or Abu Ghraib Prison. Captured Iraqi documents were also reviewed - more than 600 of them. The investigators believe the accounts to be credible because of the similarity of accounts. The classified version was written in April 1995 and a declassified version will be released soon. The study entitled "Iraqi Perspectives on Operation Iraqi Freedom, Major Combat Operations," shows that Saddam dismissed the possibility of a full-scale American invasion. "A few weeks before the attacks Saddam still thought the U.S. would not use ground forces," former Iraqi deputy prime minister, Taiq Aziz, told the Americans. "He (Saddam) thought they would not fight a ground war because it would be too costly to the Americans."

Iraqi officers devised a strategy of fighting retreat and yielding territory as the Russians had done when Napoleon invaded and later when Hitler attempted to invade Mother Russia. This was one of many miscalculations by Saddam. He and his officers failed to recognize that the Russian Army defeated neither Napoleon nor Hitler - the Russian winter did. Iraq simply does not have Russian winters.

When Saddam compared the threat from the United States to the threat from his own generals and people, the US was not seen as much of a threat. From the experience of the the First Gulf War in 1991, Saddam saw the Coalition Forces stop their advance south of Baghdad which was interpreted as an unwillingness by Washington, D.C., Pres. George H.W. Bush, and the American people to accept significant loses. The President wanted to avoid the pitfalls of occupying Iraq and had no mandate from the UN nor the Coalition partners to do any more than remove Iraqi forces from Kuwait. Many historians doubt anyone would have complained too loudly if Baghdad had been taken and the Saddam regime ended in 1991, but the fact remains, that was not the plan nor the agreement.

When it came to WMD, weapons of mass destruction, the interrogators were told Iraq didn't have any. So secretive was the Iraqi dictator and tightly compartmentalized was information that his top military commanders were stunned when told by Saddam in December 2002, three months before the war started, that Iraq possessed no stockpiles of poison gas, no germ weapons, and no nuclear bombs. The commanders were completely demoralized. They had planned the defense of Iraq around those weapons and late in the game they were told the WMD did not exist.

The WMD were lies Saddam concocted to deter Iran and homegrown enemies. He had hoped the possibility of WMD would also deter the US and the Coalition forces. The goal Saddam sought was cooperation with the UN inspectors while preserving WMD ambiguity. General Hamdani of the Republican Guard called the strategy "deterrence by doubt."

In order to pass muster, Saddam ordered complete access to the UN arms teams. But, at the same time, he ordered a national spring cleaning in which all of the weapons sites would be scrubbed free of all vestiges of previous unconventional weapons research and manufacture. The cleaning included moving dirty material from the sites on trucks just before the inspectors arrived because the inspectors would change the destination enroute and the Iraqis didn't know exactly what site was to be examined. The Western powers saw this as a shell game and begame more suspicious.

Saddam Hussein's noncompliance in turning over all records pertaining to the destruction of weapons stockpiles, refusal to allow his weapons scientists out of the country were calculated to preserve "deterrence by doubt" and avoid war. Actually, the actions had the opposite effect.

Addressing the UN Security Council in February 2003, Secretary of State Colin Powell gave photographs and communications intercepts as evidence that Iraq was rapidly trying to sanitize the weapons sites. The efforts to spiff-up and remove residue were seen by Western intelligence agencies as trying to hide evidence of unconventional arms manufacture. The very actions Saddam had ordered the reduce the threat of war actually guaranteed a military confrontation.

Though he thought he knew all the government's secrets, the man in charge of Iraq's military industries, Abd al-Tawab Mullah Huwaish, was very impressed by Powell's evidence. The Bush Administration was so adamant the weapons did exist that Huwaish began questioning if Iraq actually had the weapons. After the war, he told interrogators, "I knew a lot, but wondered why Bush believed we had these weapons."

"We didn't believe it would go all the way to Baghdad," a senior Republican Guard staff officer later told his interrogators. "We thought the coalition would go to Basra, maybe to Amara, and then the war would end."

Saddam played a dangerous game of lies and deception in which only he knew the rules and the truth. The biggest risk is people may actually believe the lies and disregard the truth. Apparently, that is what happened and it led straight to war. President Bush did not lie about the WMDs. He only believed the lies perpetrated by a liar. The lies the President chose to act upon were the most dangerous if true and it was his duty to act upon the evidence at hand to protect the US, the citizens of America, and the people around the world who could have been harmed. Saddam brought this war on himself and the Iraqi people with his deceptions and subterfuges.

Is Iran playing the same dangerous game?

The life of Indigo Red is full of adventure. Tune in next time for the Further Adventures of Indigo Red.

Milosevic Is Dead

Justice is feeling a little bit cheated today because Serbian despot, Slobodan Milosevic , is dead. He died in his prison cell in The Hague. His lawyer suspects poisoning, but no official cause of death has been determined. Milosevic, 64, has suffered from high blood pressure and heart problems. On Feb. 24, the tribunal refused Milosevic's request to be temporarily released to Moscow in order to undergo medical treatment. In a trial that started on Feb. 12, 2002, Milosevic faced 66 charges of war crimes, including genocide for his role in the Balkan wars following the breakup of the Yugoslav federation in the 1990s.

"The death of Slobodan Milosevic, a few weeks before the completion of his trial, will prevent justice to be done in his case," said Carla del Ponte, chief prosecutor in The Hague at the United Nations war crimes tribunal.

Defying the break-up of Yugoslavia, Serbia was put on the world map by Milosevic in a brutal and barbaric manner. Using an age old hatred of Muslims developed over centuries of vicious Ottoman rule, and a newly found violent nationalism, the Serbs commenced a decade of "ethnic cleansing". Thousands were raped, murdered, burned, chased into exile, and the countryside was devastated all under the thin guise of democracy. He was dubbed "The Butcher of the Balkins."

Wiretapped phone conversations show Milosevic to be a run-of-the-mill, garden variety despot, just another tin-pot banana republic dictator without bananas. He was harassed by his domineering wife and spoiled children, hounded by ingratiating yes-men, and pumped up by a polite phone call from Bill Clinton, President of the United States of America aboard Air Force One.

Believing himself to be the equal of prominent world leaders, in 1995 Milosevic signed the Dayton Peace Accord in Paris. The Dayton Accords ended the Bosnian War which was only one of the useless wars Milosevic had started but was unable to finish leaving more thousands of people dead, destitute, and desperate.

Finally, the desperate people of Bosnia, in a popular revolt brought down the Milosevic dictatorship on October 5, 1995. After a 36 hour siege of his villa in Belgrade six months later, he surrendered in the wee small hours of April 1.

The life of Indigo Red is full of adventure. Tune in next time for the Further Adventures of Indigo Red.

Thursday, March 09, 2006

Ports Terminal Deal Folds

Here was the deal - Dubai Ports World was to have managed 2 of 14 cargo terminals in Baltimore; in Houston 3 of 12; 1 of 3 terminals in Miami; 1 terminal out of 4 in Newark; 2 of 5 terminals in New Orleans; only 1 terminal of the 5 terminals in Philadelphia; and 1 cruise terminal in each New York City and Boston.

DP World was to manage terminal services only in a total of 6 ports and no more than 30% of the existing terminals in any one of the ports. It was also to help run the stevedoring operations in the named ports and several other ports. The actual cargo handlers would have still been the International Longshoremen's Association, the 65,000-member union operating from Florida to Maine. This was an offer we couldn't refuse.

In a New York indictment handed down in July 2005 by the US Justice Dept, the ILA has been accused of being a "vehicle for organized crime" on the waterfront. The union stands accused of corruption, embezzling, and extortion while the union executives are accused of being associated with the Gambino and Genovese crime families collectively known as the Mafia, La Cosa Nostra, or simply, the Mob.

Of course, the ILA has denied any shenanigans and said that any mob connections is a myth because, as everyone knows, the Mob doesn't exist. James McNamara, a Union spokesman, said, "Nobody in America cares more about port security than the longshoremen" and any suggestion that the ILA is a security risk is "ludicrous."

A news release from the ILA on Feb 21, the ILA advised the Bush Administration to look very carefully at DP World "to avoid even the impression of unnecessary risks." ILA lawyer Howard Goldstein said, "The union has done a lot, and has lobbied hard, to improve port security...These allegations, even if true, don't jeopardize port security."

The port deal critics claimed Arab ownership made infiltration by nefarious elements possible. Security experts say the gangsters have already made the docks a lucrative environment for drug smugglers, cargo thieves, and other ne'er-do-wells. A former special agent for the U.S. Customs Service, Joseph King, said that even without the direct help of American mobsters, terrorists could still use gangland networks to their advantage.

Or even supplant the American mobsters and take over the entire crime operation themselves cutting off a very profitable income stream for the Mob. The Mob uses the monies gained in port operations to pay off police and politicians who then vote "NO" on deals made with Arab port operations companies. A possible turf dispute between competing criminal enterprises? Possibly, but we will never know because an investigation will never be carried out.

Every election cycle, the ILA pays out millions of dollars in PAC (political action committee) money to political office candidates. Over $7 million went to various politicians the top recipients in the last few elections being: Sens. Frank Lautenberg, D-NJ, Robert Menendez, D-NJ, Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., Chuck Schumer, D-NY, and Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-NY, all represent states with important ports. "Some of these same senators," writes Linda Chavez in Jewish World Review, "are among the chief critics of the Dubai port deal, but they are noticeably silent when it comes to mob influence in the union that actually controls who works on these ports."

Today, all of Washington, DC is breathing a collective sigh of relief at Dubai's decision to back out of the deal letting both the White House and Capital Hill off the hook. However, the UAE has left open the possibility of reprisals. Nothing specific has been said by the Emir or his governmental representatives. But, The Hill reports that the Emirates Group Airlines is deciding this year to buy the new Boeing 787 Dreamliner or the European Airbus A350. Last year, Dubai became Boeing's biggest client when they purchased 47 Boeing 777 aircraft worth $9.7 billion. During the next four years, the sheikdom may buy upwards of 50 wide-body Boeing and Airbus planes. Also purchased have been Apache attack helicopters made by Boeing, and the company is in talks to sell its AWACS planes to the Emirates. We will find out what the fall-out may be next week when US and Emirate trade representatives meet in the fourth round of free-trade talks.

The US Navy sees Dubai as a critical logistics center that also provides needed R&R for troops fighting in the Middle East. The US Navy, in the past year, has tied up to Dubai docks 590 supply ships, 56 warships, and approximately 77,000 military personnel have used leave time in the very popular Emirates.

We have all lost on this deal, and because this is so, perhaps no one will be harmed. Business may yet continue unabated. America is still safe from the thieving hands of scoundrel sheiks in the theiving hands of scoundrel mafiosi. The devil you know vs. the devil you don't know.

The life of Indigo Red is full of adventure. Tune in next time for the Further Adventures of Indigo Red.

Mohammad Cartoon Threats Made

Thug threatens Atlas!

Threats have been made against the blogger of "Atlas Shrugs" because Pamela has published the Mohammad cartoons. Pamela is a very outspoken component of the blogosphere's campaign for truth in the world. She sheds light on vermin who then threaten her and the rest of us, too. The coward calling himself "Karl" will be found and dealt with by the proper authorities as will anyone else attempting to stifle freedom and liberty.

Well, Karl, up close and personal, here are those same Mohammad Cartoons in your face. You've threatened a woman; now's your chance to threaten a cripple. And to anyone else who may wish to be offended - that's your problem, deal with it.

The life of Indigo Red is full of adventure. Tune in next time for the Further Adventures of Indigo Red.

Monday, March 06, 2006

Clash of Civilizations - Dr. Wafa Sultan: 21, Timbuk: 2

Mohammad placing the Ka'aba, a black rock that fell from the sky, into the shrine at Mecca

Lebanese-American psychologist Dr. Wafa Sultan took on the entire 7th Century lunatic world of the Mohammadans this past February 21, 2006 on Al-Jazeera TV. As Christians, Dr. Wafa and her family were driven out of the Muslim ravaged ancient Phoenician land of Lebanon.

Witness for yourself the wondrous shellacing Dr. Wafa gives to the Islamic barbarian, Dr. Ibrahim Al-Khouli. The MEMRITV video is priceless. Here is a portion of the program transcript:

Wafa Sultan: The clash we are witnessing around the world is not a clash of religions, or a clash of civilizations. It is a clash between two opposites, between two eras. It is a clash between a mentality that belongs to the Middle Ages and another mentality that belongs to the 21st century. It is a clash between civilization and backwardness, between the civilized and the primitive, between barbarity and rationality. It is a clash between freedom and oppression, between democracy and dictatorship. It is a clash between human rights, on the one hand, and the violation of these rights, on other hand. It is a clash between those who treat women like beasts, and those who treat them like human beings. What we see today is not a clash of civilizations. Civilizations do not clash, but compete.

Host: I understand from your words that what is happening today is a clash between the culture of the West, and the backwardness and ignorance of the Muslims?
Wafa Sultan: Yes, that is what I mean.

Host: Who came up with the concept of a clash of civilizations? Was it not Samuel Huntington? It was not Bin Laden. I would like to discuss this issue, if you don't mind...

Wafa Sultan: The Muslims are the ones who began using this expression. The Muslims are the ones who began the clash of civilizations. The Prophet of Islam said: "I was ordered to fight the people until they believe in Allah and His Messenger." When the Muslims divided the people into Muslims and non-Muslims, and called to fight the others until they believe in what they themselves believe, they started this clash, and began this war. In order to start this war, they must reexamine their Islamic books and curricula, which are full of calls for takfir and fighting the infidels.

My colleague has said that he never offends other people's beliefs. What civilization on the face of this earth allows him to call other people by names that they did not choose for themselves? Once, he calls them Ahl Al-Dhimma, another time he calls them the "People of the Book," and yet another time he compares them to apes and pigs, or he calls the Christians "those who incur Allah's wrath." Who told you that they are "People of the Book"? They are not the People of the Book, they are people of many books. All the useful scientific books that you have today are theirs, the fruit of their free and creative thinking. What gives you the right to call them "those who incur Allah's wrath," or "those who have gone astray," and then come here and say that your religion commands you to refrain from offending the beliefs of others?

I am not a Christian, a Muslim, or a Jew. I am a secular human being. I do not believe in the supernatural, but I respect others' right to believe in it.

Dr. Ibrahim Al-Khouli: Are you a heretic?

Wafa Sultan: You can say whatever you like. I am a secular human being who does not believe in the supernatural...

Dr. Ibrahim Al-Khouli: If you are a heretic, there is no point in rebuking you, since you have blasphemed against Islam, the Prophet, and the Koran...

Wafa Sultan: These are personal matters that do not concern you.

Wafa Sultan: Brother, you can believe in stones, as long as you don't throw them at me. You are free to worship whoever you want, but other people's beliefs are not your concern, whether they believe that the Messiah is God, son of Mary, or that Satan is God, son of Mary. Let people have their beliefs.

Wafa Sultan: The Jews have come from the tragedy (of the Holocaust), and forced the world to respect them, with their knowledge, not with their terror, with their work, not their crying and yelling. Humanity owes most of the discoveries and science of the 19th and 20th centuries to Jewish scientists. 15 million people, scattered throughout the world, united and won their rights through work and knowledge. We have not seen a single Jew blow himself up in a German restaurant. We have not seen a single Jew destroy a church. We have not seen a single Jew protest by killing people. The Muslims have turned three Buddha statues into rubble. We have not seen a single Buddhist burn down a Mosque, kill a Muslim, or burn down an embassy. Only the Muslims defend their beliefs by burning down churches, killing people, and destroying embassies. This path will not yield any results. The Muslims must ask themselves what they can do for humankind, before they demand that humankind respect them.

Personally, I was cheering at 6AM when I first watched the video of Dr. Wafa lay into the host and that ridiculous fool Dr. Ibrahim Al-Khouli. What the hell kind of "doctor" could he possibly be...a witch doctor? I'm sure glad this bright, thoughtful woman of righteous anger is on our side because she sure made mincemeat out of Islam.

From the archives (July 30, 2005) of Robert Spencer at Dhimmi Watch, we are treated to this gem between Dr. Sultan and Dr. Ahmad Bin Muhammad (Algerian professor of religious politics - whatever the hell that is) which aired on Al-Jazeera on July 26, 2005:

Wafa Sultan: [...]In our countries, religion is the sole source of education, and is the only spring from which that terrorist drank until his thirst was quenched. He was not born a terrorist, and did not become a terrorist overnight. Islamic teachings played a role in weaving his ideological fabric, thread by thread, and did not allow other sources – I am referring to scientific sources – to play a role. It was these teachings that distorted this terrorist and killed his humanity. It was not (the terrorist) who distorted the religious teachings and misunderstood them, as some ignorant people claim.

When you recite to a child still in his early years the verse: "They will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off," regardless of this verse's interpretation, and regardless of the reasons it was conveyed or its time – you have made the first step towards creating a great terrorist...

Dr. Ahmad Bin Muhammad, an Algerian professor of religious politics: The guest from America asked how a young man could blow up a bus. If only she had asked how a president could blow up a peaceful nation in Iraq. How does a president help the arch-killer of occupied Palestine? Why doesn't she ask from where Hitler was brought up – Hitler, who murdered 50 million innocent people. Why doesn't she ask where the people who dropped two atom bombs on Japan were educated? Who killed three million innocent Vietnamese? Who annihilated the Indians? Who maintained imperialism to this day? Who waged the Spanish civil war, which exacted a toll of 600,000 in 36 months? Why don't we ask these questions? Who has over 15,000 nuclear warheads – Muslims or the non-Muslims? The Muslims or the Americans? The Muslims or the Europeans? We want an answer. Where was Bush educated – if education is really what makes a person a criminal?...

Wafa Sultan: Murder is terrorism regardless of time or place, but when it is committed as a decree from Allah, this is another matter...

The Crusader wars about which the professor is talking – these wars came after the Islamic religious teachings, and as a response to these teachings. This is the law of action and reaction. The Islamic religious teachings have incited to the rejection of the other, to the denial of the other, and to the killing of the other. Have they not incited to the killing of Jews and Christians? If we had heard that a tribe in a distant corner of China has a holy book and religious teachings calling to kill Muslims – would the Muslims stand idly by in the face of such teachings?

The Crusader wars came after these Islamic religious teachings. When these Islamic teachings were delivered, America did not exist on the face of the earth, nor was Israel in Palestine...
Why doesn't he talk about the Muslim conquests that preceded all the wars he is talking about? Why doesn't he mention that when Tariq bin Ziyyad entered Andalusia with his armies, he said to his people: "The sea is behind you, and the enemy is in front"? How can you storm a peaceful country, and consider all its peaceful inhabitants to be your enemies, merely because you have the right to spread your religion? Should the religion be spread by the sword and through fighting?...

Bin Muhammad: Who invented slavery in recent centuries? Who colonized the other – us or them? Did Algeria colonize France, or vice versa? Did Egypt colonize England, or vice versa? We are the victims...

I am not saying that killing innocent people is nice. I say that all innocent people should be protected. But at the same time, we must start with the innocent among the Muslims. There are millions of innocent people among us, while the innocent among you – and innocent they are – number only dozens, hundreds, or thousands, at the most...

Wafa Sultan: Can you explain to me the killing of a hundred thousand children, women and men in Algeria, using the most abominable killing methods? Can you explain to me the killing of 15,000 Syrian civilians? Can you explain to me the abominable crime in the military artillery school in Aleppo? Can you explain the crime in Al-Asbaqiya neighborhood of Damascus, Syria? Can you explain the attack of the terrorists on the peaceful village of Al-Kisheh in Upper Egypt, and the massacre of 21 Coptic peasants? Can you explain to me what is going on in Indonesia, Turkey, and Egypt, even though these are Islamic countries which opposed the American intervention in Iraq, and which don't have armies in Iraq, yet were not spared by the terrorists? Can you explain these phenomena, which took place in Arab countries? Was all this revenge on America or Israel? Or were they merely to satisfy bestial wild instincts aroused in them by religious teachings, which incite to rejection of the other, to the killing of the other, and to the denial of the other. When Saddam Hussein buried 300,000 Shiites and Kurds alive, we did not hear a single Muslim protesting. Your silence served to acknowledge the legitimacy of these killings, didn't it?...
The program ended with Dr. Sultan saying this:

Christopher Columbus discovered American in 1492. America was founded in 1776, approximately 300 years later. You cannot blame America – as a constitution, a regime, and a state – for killing the Indians.

Many years ago, the late-Gene Roddenberry was asked, "Why are there no Muslims in the world of STAR TREK?" His simple reply gives me hope, "Because Star Trek is in the future.”

The life of Indigo Red is full of adventure. Tune in next time for the Further Adventures of Indigo Red.